Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-9, 13-15) in the Reply filed 10/24/25 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 03/24/23 are approved by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statements filed 03/24/23 and 05/07/24 have been considered. Initialed copies accompany this action.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears from para 0092 of the instant PGPUB that the instantly recited “(004)” peak is a typo and should recite -–(104)--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamad et al (Batteries 2019).
Hamad discloses lithium-rich cathode materials synthesized using metals salts with acetate and nitrate ions (Abstract). The nitrate process (i.e. LRNI) entails (emphasis added in underline):
PNG
media_image1.png
678
1184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The disclosed heating at 400° with a 5c/min meet the instant requirement of “first heat treatment”, and the disclosed heating at 900°C for 12h meets the instant “second heat treatment” (including the language appearing in independent claim 13 relating to “control morphology and crystallinity” as it is well known in the art that heating/cooling schedules of the cathode materials are utilized (and varied) in order to tailor the resultant crystallographic properties. Additionally, the disclosed dry powder palletization inherently meets the claimed “compressing…to remove voids” (and instant dependent claim 5). Lastly, the refence specifies a (003) to (104) peak ratio within the claimed 1.3-2.0 (see Fig 5 of reference).
The reference is anticipatory.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 8, 9, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamad et al (Batteries 2019).
Hamad is relied upon as set forth above. With respect to instant dependent claim 2, the examiner respectfully submits that the skilled artisan would have found the use of ketone solvent (e.g. acetone) obvious as such is well-known in the art as a solvent for precursor nitrate salts. With respect to dependent claims 4, 8, 9 and 14-15, the examiner submits that the skilled artisan would have to utilize only routine testing in order to arrive at suitable heating rates and/or stoichiometry variation in order to tailor the resultant electrical properties of the cathode materials. In re "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
The remaining references listed on forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK T KOPEC whose telephone number is (571)272-1319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Jones can be reached at 5712707733. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK KOPEC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
MK
January 28, 2026